Is it possible to trade Godly thinking for "higher" thinking

I guess I'd have to wonder what "correctly" is. A statement like yours is fine as far as it goes but it doesn't go very far. What determines "correctly"? Who is it that interprets scripture "to mean whatever they want it to"? Those who disagree with us and that's it?

Personally, I've found that pursuing learning has definitely had made my faith journey much more difficult and has led to doubts, questions and lapses I may not have had otherwise. It's also made me think I needed to turn a cheek on some intellectual struggles in favour of simply embracing faith. And maybe it's in those moments that the idea that Godly knowledge and higher learning conflict. But frankly, a person can work through those. Those are not moments when you should give up religion or throw your hands up at education and condemn one or the other. Those are the times you wrestle harder and plough through until you've found a synthesis once again. It's a climb but every time you come through that struggle with both aspects intact you find yourself rewarding with a new outlook on faith, knowledge and life.

To be frank, setting one up against the other seems to me like an excuse to call it quits.

Anyway, interesting discussion. I do think it might be important though to keep these sorts of threads in the Christian forum.

 

well one obvious 'interpretation' that we hear alot is this

God is Love.

Interpretation? I can do anything I want, since He 'loves' me, I won't be held accountable, so anything goes. We all fall short, so why even try?

Wow with loop holes like that, might as well go out and rob a bank lol

I would urge you to look into a book titled The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel

Those doubts, questions and lapses are things you need answers for. If 'higher education' is raising more questions than the explanations you are getting, maybe try learning from a different source. Source is very important. If I use a source that portrays inaccurate information as 'truth' or 'proven', then I will leave with more questions than answers.

 

Let me put it another way: Some people seem to think that they must be wise or godly because others believe them to be foolish, as if appearing foolish in public is a badge of honor. For me, these are Christians whom, if I'm honest, I feel rather embarrassed to be with. They do and say some things that make me cringe.

I agree with DawnInns. Higher learning can sometimes force us to another plain of understanding, a different set of challenges to answer - but it's nothing to be afraid of. Higher learning, for example, forced us to accept that the earth orbits the sun, and that's a good thing to know. While we think little of it now, this caused considerable grief to many because it means we can't take the Psalms literally.

It's uncomfortable to accept we might be wrong on some things.

 

I think that's a case for approaching scripture with a well honed intellect. The interpretation you cited would be one something a person unfamiliar with scripture might come up with. Or something a person who's view of love was very simple minded and uninformed by philosophy or psychology.

I think you missed my point. Doubts are being raised by learning but those doubts are also being answered by that learning and I come out the other side of those struggles with a better and stronger faith. It's exactly what you suggested, turning away from things, that I don't want to do.

I'm a great fan of my minister's approach. His opinion is that faith isn't about getting answers, it's about learning to ask better questions.

 

Cornish Steve,

I would not say that appearing to be foolish should be a badge of honor. But look at the life of Jesus, many people that he was foolish. So there are legitimate times when looking foolish in the world's eyes can be a by product of following Jesus. I am not saying we should set out to look foolish, or that every foolish thing is of God. I am just saying what the world values and what God values can be polar opposite.

And yes, I thought the other day that maybe I should have posted this in the Christian forum. I just didn't realize where the conversation would lead.

 

I know many who I cringe to be around. Fools because of the way they profess faith which actually turns others away and fools because they do not profess faith and are dying spiritually.

From my eyes..I think there are two definitions of foolish being talked about here. I think there is more agreement then it seems.

 

Nicely stated! I think that is the core of this discussion. I think that the "fool" described by cabsmom and the "fool" described by Steve are different. Just my opinion.

Don't worry about where this thread is..that happens all the time. It didn't seem like you intended for the discussion to lead here from your original post anyway. If it's an issue, Amy will move it for you..no biggie.

 

Ava Rose,
I think you are right, it isn't that Steve and I disagree but we are talking about two different things perhaps.

I think that if someone is following God and stands up for what is right and the world thinks they are foolish, then so be it. Look at Martin Luther King Jr., he did a world of good for the equal treatment of African Americans. But, I am sure there were many who thought he was a fool, probably even some that wanted the same thing, but questioned his methods.

 

I agree. There are godly people who look like fools in the world's eyes - just as the bible points out. There are also fools who look like fools in the world's eyes - and in some Christians' eyes. Unfortunately, 'conformity' and 'majority' are not useful criteria for figuring out which is which. Neither is sincerity.

A couple of years ago, a couple got upset, started complaining, and walked out of a presentation given by 'Bill Nye the science guy' because he happened to mention that the moon reflects light and doesn't radiate it. They were convinced that the bible says that God created two lights, so of course this must mean the moon radiates light. I'm sure these people were very sincere, and they weren't espousing this opinion for gain or a reputation of piety. Quite simply, they were mistaken - and 'sincerely' wrong.

How do we address situations like this? We probably agree that it's OK to approach such people and point out their error. Still, if I do the same with believers who reject evolutionary science, I'm a heretic and get yelled at! In this case, we appear to be using 'conformity', 'majority', and 'sincerity' as the sole criteria of correctness.

 

Well Cornish Steve,

I think we are finally understanding each other (thanks to Ava Rose). I still won't budge on my belief on evolution. I just can't believe that apes turn into humans, besides why is it not happening now? Anyway, I am not trying to anger you, just putting a little light-hearted debate in here. I believe that if you believe that Jesus died for your sins and you have accepted Him as your savior-then I will see you in Heaven one day. Whether you believe in evolution or not is not a concern for me. The only concern I have towards evolution is the fact that it is being taught almost exclusively and it is not allowed to be questioned in most schools. I believe differently than that and I should be able to go to college and learn about "intelligent design".
Plus, I really think it could be a non-issue in most college classes. I mean really-why do I care if my doctor, teacher, etc. has learned about evolution. I don't think it helps us deal with the issues of today.

 

First and foremost, as you rightly point out, these issues do not affect our salvation. That's a given.

On all topics with which we wrestle today, different people are going to have different opinions. In times past, there were arguments about whether slavery is acceptable, whether women are allowed to speak in church, whether divorce is permitted, whether the earth orbits the sun, whether Hell is somewhere in the earth's core, and so on. Today, the most common topics of dispute are whether gays should receive the same social rights as married couples, whether we have the right to invade another country and execute its leader, whether it's OK to build the Crystal Cathedral when believers elsewhere are starving to death, whether to accept evolution as accepted science, and so on.

Over time, many of these issues will be resolved. Today, for the most part, we accept that the earth orbits the sun, we believe that slavery is wrong and that women can assume leadership positions in the church - although some disagree. But what if, 200 years ago, we'd have asked believers in the South about slavery? They'd point to Bible verses to justify the practice, and anyone who opposed that view was probably hounded out of house and home and church or jailed for their belief. It's easy, looking back, to see whose cause was correct, but minority opinions were simply 'heresies' at the time.

We disagree over evolution, for example, which is fine. My problem on this issue is that there's no room for discussion. Even one sentence can start a raging argument and cause me to be 'suspected' of some dastardly motive. Is that right? Why can't we discuss these things in church? If believers had discussed slavery in the past, maybe we could have led change much sooner.

Let me put the point bluntly (and I hope no one takes this the wrong way): I suspect that some church leaders (or self-appointed public spokesmen for our faith) stifle discussion on certain topics because it's a matter of power and control. They don't want to understand, and they cloak their views in biblical language to create an impression of authority. This was certainly true of the establishment churches in centuries past. Personally, I don't buy that. As believers, we have nothing to fear on any topic. We should be able to confront any issue in light of the bible's teaching and, when there are seeming contradictions, accept that we may be interpreting some passages wrongly. These matters don't rock the foundations of our faith; instead, they allow us to make sense of information that no previous generation has encountered.

Relating this to our children, I've found that the same phenomenon exists. If we tell them what to believe, instead of discussing differing views objectively and explaining, from first principles, why some conclusions are right and others are wrong, they will naturally rebel. Teens, in particular, expect to know the rationale and facts behind our thinking. That way, when they face an awkward situation in life, they can apply those same principles and way of thinking to find a solution.

 

Cornish Steve,

You are right about what you said about using the Bible to back up what we want at the time. It has been done before and will probably be done throughout time. There are some issues that I can see both sides of the argument, like the death penalty. Personally, I don't think it should be used because... well many reasons. But, I can understand how others might think it is just. Thank you for many good responses and such, you sure know how to present your thoughts well.